##VIDEO ID:a99WtVfa7Lk## e e e e e e e e testing testing e e e e hey how's it going hello there I think okay I think okay okay first one D are you ready in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they should state so at this time we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the unit St of America and to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible withy andice for not working I mean quiet I thought he gets the centerpiece M uh Mrs wner here Mr venudo here Mr leadwin Mrs not here miss Sheen here M Mr Walsh Mr Zer here Mr Bodner here thank you okay we have the minutes of the July 25th meeting I have a correction to the minutes I'm sorry uh in this in the first motion SEC yeah in the first Mo resolution motion it has me as making the motion and seconding the motion it should be Miss Sheen seconded the motion I'll make that correction thank you thank you would someone make a motion to approve the minutes I'll make the motion second we have a motion by Mr venudo seconded by Mr leadwin Mr Mr Lewin yes Mrs not obain miss Shan yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner abstain thank you okay all right now we have a resolutions looking wrong one there you go oh it's that's what threw me off with the name okay the resolution is for Frank and Joyce Doty at 1832 Maryland Avenue can we have um a motion please I'll make the motion I'll second we have a motion by Mr bner correct yes Thank You seconded by Miss Shen Mr lwin yes Mrs Notch abstain Miss Shen yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner abstain thank you completely thr me off okay our first application tonight is Donna and John dty 21 Grant Street this fine Mr already I'm going to swear you in if that's okay and we also swear in the board engineer please raise your right hand thought you with stuff in your hand sorry either each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth s you got I do thank you do you want to hand out sure okay are they new are they part of the existing package are okay thank you okay good evening Madame chair board members my name is Ron gunis appearing on behalf of Donna and John Doty property is 211 Grant Street this is a single family home located in the R2 District The Proposal this evening is to reconfigure the interior of the structure which will include elimination of a set of stairs a chimney and new Dormers to increase the ceiling height other improvements to the exterior grounds are proposed which include removal of concrete replacement with perious pavers and removal of the rear deck our witness this evening Miss Pam fine from fine architecture to my left and Miss Donna dely to my right uh believe you sore them in already so Pam if you could briefly just place your credentials on the record oh sure uh Pamela fine from fine architecture um licensed uh architect since 2012 uh been working in Kate May County since 2005 as a designer/ architect and have appeared before this board numerous times chair recognize as an expert thank you um Pam why don't you take us through the existing conditions on the site exterior and how the house is laid out and then take us through I know you have a handout here right where you can go floor by floor and show existing floor layout compared to what's proposed so it's more easily identifiable exactly what's uh being proposed you got it uh so I have the packet it is be a before and after explanation of what we're doing um like Mr galuna says it's easier to look at the packet than flip back and forth between the larger sheets so it is exactly the same as what is on the larger sheets I'll start with this A1 on the packet that shows the existing site plan and the proposed site plan the existing site plan you'll see uh site improvements that consist of uh concrete walkways a Tire strip uh there's also a rear Deck with a set of stairs and a front walkway these are all concrete uh as far as the walkways and the tire strips go and then the rear deck is uh wood so if you look on the proposed site plan we're replacing all of the concrete with pervious pavers and then that rear deck comes off and we're putting back on a small landing and stair if you flip back to the existing site plan you'll see the stair is actually dashed in where that larger deck is there was a previous landing and stair there that was removed this larger deck installed so we're proposing this deck be removed um in replacement of the uh the smaller landing and stair um that is all in trying to get that impervious coverage amount down also increases your rear yard setback right yeah so it gives us two benefits so we uh come closer to compliance with the rear yard setback distance and we are closer in compliance to the lock coverage uh we are only about 48 square ft away from being compliant where we used to be 268 Square ft over in lock coverage uh the rear yard setback went from 13' 8 to 181 where 25 is required so we are very close to being compliant on both of those uh issues so those are both improvements to the property improvements to the property that's correct and the steps that are remaining there now that that's what's necessary to Ingress and egress through the rear of the building it steps and a landing open the door and stand on that's an existing utility room in the back um when you turn the page the A2 you'll see that room is still there uh we're taking off that back deck and we're just giving a small landing and stair so that we can have a uh means to get to the rear yard and now that we're on the A2 sheet I'll go over any kind of changes on this level this is your existing first floor plan and proposed first floor plan the uh majority of the changes are eliminating an interior stair so this house actually has multiple stairs you'll see one at the front entryway that one will stay and then there's a central stair that is a Winder stair that's close to the middle of the house at the kitchen area we're proposing removal of that stair um that is a very difficult stair to navigate no one uses it um so we're proposing elimination in in um uh and having a replacement of a wet bar area in that same location so that is where primarily the floor area uh total increases um we are also removing various chimneys so that space again becomes floor so we have to add that into floor area ratio um and then you'll notice the change in the back deck like I spoke of before and then a couple of minor changes to that utility room we're just creating another closet and then fixing that bathroom on that first floor to work a little bit easier you'll see the toilet's kind of shoved in the corner there and it's almost impossible to use so we're fixing that as well but the majority of the changes on this level is that stair removal so so that stair the stairs appears the diagram to the left right the the stairs that are going up right in the center yes that's the one that's being removed and the diagram to the left they're no longer there and it's replaced with a um uh like a countertop I guess bar yeah like a coffee bar uh I labeled it as a wet bar has a uh wine refrigerator and a countertop now in terms of floor area ratio uh how does that work and what effect does that have um R so floor area ratio you uh count the stairs only once um you don't count chimneys uh you don't count exterior wall thicknesses so uh you'll see that change reflected into the numbers on the second floor where um that area has been added so um it turns into an increase so the first floor only has 11 which was really the chimneys um being added back in and the second floor has 28 so it's just that stair opening that we're adding back into that floor so you're showing the dotted lines where walls used to be is that the removal of a interior wall yeah so if you look in the front here the living area we have some um interior partitions that we're removing to basically open that space up into one large living space and all that accounts for some of the increased Flor area ratio yeah primarily it's chimneys on that level um it's only 11 square feet so um it wasn't much okay okay and then the A3 sheet we're going up a floor to the second level you'll see on the back bedroom there's a bathroom alongside of it we are renovating that bathroom we're giving a little bit more area pointing to the left yeah the left rear on the left side right yes so they uh the left most uh bathroom we are renovating that you'll see the change on the proposed second floor where we uh move the interior wall into the bedroom so we're not actually expanding this floor either um so we are just increasing the size of the bathroom decreasing the size of the bedroom and then in doing that we remove that stair that comes from that first floor kitchen area and then we added that back into the bedroom so the bedroom uh was able to take that space from that stair and that stair removal of that stair accounts for yes add floor a ratio that is where I added the floor air ratio on this level um there's also a couple of chimneys that we are removing there's a chimney in the middle bedroom that you see as an x uh and a box around it that chimney is gone and then in the front bedroom we have another chimney that is alongside of that narrow closet that we removed as well so again chimneys and stairs okay now this the top floor here was a little confusing to me on how this worked I had to look at for a long long time so um maybe give us a little explanation of what's there and on on the drawing to the left which is the existing condition um tell us what these uh dotted lines represent okay so this uh I called it the habitable attic it's all within in the sloped roof of the house um on the left is your existing layout we have a front bedroom we have a back bedroom and then we have a bathroom in between each bedroom has a set of stairs that we are keeping um the dash lines are where the actual tray ceiling lies it doesn't have to do with any Heights or anything like that it's just where the flat SE ceiling starts and the slope ceiling uh joins so that is all existing you'll see that middle bathroom it's kind of an odd layout again toilets are shoved in Corners where you really can't access them um so this level we were just trying to get a usable bathroom layout and then um that back bedroom those wall Heights are very very low so we were trying to do a shed Dormer which I'll explain when we get to the elevations that wouldn't add to floor area ratio the goal was to keep it under 6 and 1/2 ft tall um and have that flat ceiling come across and join where the existing ceiling lies but it would give them area to put a closet to put their bed um to put a chair something that they could use and not have uh just a very narrow hallway uh so to speak in this bedroom in the back it's very very cramped um so just to um flesh that that out a little bit more the um that room is all open that room is all open yes and there's only certain areas of it that have a ceiling height that's higher than 6.5 ft yes and only in that area that area is counted as floor area ratio yes so if you go to the proposed side um you'll see a lighter dashed line and then some uh Dimension strings that say area with ceiling height of 6.5 or greater and that shows where the existing ceiling Heights are higher than that area that would constitute a floor area ratio um location so that in the front is all staying as is same thing in the back where we're doing these Dormers we're only having a top plate of 6 point or 6 foot5 um we are not increasing the ceiling height any higher than that in these dormered areas it's just enough to get a little bit of Headroom on the sides um everything that is is counted as FL a ratio will remain as FL a ratio in the third floor so let me ask that question in another way is any of the work that you're proposing um in connection with the Dormers and the work on the third floor here add to existing floor area ratio the Dormers do not know no so we could technically obtain a permit for the Dormers because they do not add floor area ratio so the Dormers fully comply with the bulk requirements as well in terms of height and sidey yard setback they do so if they were they were just constructing the Dormers they would go to the Construction office and get permits and construct those Dormers yes so we're not here uh for that tonight that's correct we're only here really for the removal of the stair and the various chimneys because that's what's adding to the floor area ratio increase but we are are going to point out that the Dormers add some architectural feature appeal to the house yes so uh we had to go to HPC um to get a preliminary approval which we did um we got full approval for preliminaries since we were seeking a variants they couldn't give us final but we will go back for that um but we showed them the Dormers the Dormers each have a very small window in them um you'll see on the A6 sheet um that shows you the proposed rights side elevation uh the existing right side elevation is above that so you can see the change it's about a twoot by uh 2x two awning style window um and it gives that bedroom a little bit more light a little bit more air um that bedroom only has a back-facing window so I think it it'll help the layout um and the functionality of the room immensely okay so just the summary eyes and clear this up the we we've talked about the Dormers um that area up there is already existing and being used yes and you're not adding any more bedrooms or beds or anything you're just making it a more comfortable existing place to use that's correct by adding light in some additional head space yes um and the uh third floor the second floor the first floor uh the same questions there's there's no additional uh rooms that could be used as a bedroom that are proposed no and the activities that occur within the building uh are not are they increased by what you're proposing not at all so are are I imagine they'll be used since they're the same rooms just reconfigured the interior of the structure is still going to be used in the same manner it's used now that's correct yep or to ask that in terms of of land use law nothing you're proposing here is going to increase the int intensity of use on the property that's correct okay so the the standard we have to meet for floor area ratio is to um determine whether or not the site can accommodate the problems that are associated with increased FL area ratio um do those problems exist in in this application in this proposal um we are not exacerbating anything that already exists uh we're merely turning chimney space into an area for uh the living room and various bedrooms um the existing stair will become part of the kitchen um so we are not proposing any new bathrooms no new bedrooms no new rooms at all um so everything that we're proposing is contained within the existing shell of the home so with with that in mind um do you see any detriment to the public good flowing from this out in into the neighborhood none at all I think if anything it's a benefit um the site improvements that we're proposing brings us very very close to compliant with impervious coverage uh with rear yard setback which all affects the neighbors so I think it's a benefit and considering that um Flor area ratios are designed to um I guess contain uses on the property in the size of buildings um and that these uh it really just appears to me as a reconfiguration of the existing facilities within um is there any detriment to the Zone plan zoning ordinance by this proposed I don't see any detriment at all Donna would you like to say a few words um no warning no I wouldn't ask you anything you haven't discussed already okay um microphone oh there you go uh so um I guess it's important for you to reorganize the inside to make this uh a better place to live maybe tell us a little bit about that like why go through the effort in other words um we're actually planning to retire down here hopefully in the next two years um but the way it's going um and so the bathrooms are incredibly tight in the house in all three of them there's about an 18in space about this wide to squeeze between the sink and the edge of the shower wall to get back to the toilet not particularly workable um if you're a tiny person it's great but if you're not it's not so great um so that will help that um the bedroom configuration as far as the chimneys go they just kind of they take up a lot of space you don't have a lot of space for closets um Furniture is kind of in odd configurations so that just sort of will flatten the walls out nicely not not bump out into the room so much for something that's unused we actually get a significant amount of air flow down through those chimneys um it's just the house they were built for summer homes um so I'm looking forward to the lack of you know 40 mph winds in the winter blowing out from the chimney that'll be lovely um yeah I mean that's that's and when did you purchase the property I'm can I ask a question yeah can you talk about that staircase cuz I I've been in staircases like this one in that neighborhood talk about how that it's not a real staircase it's it really isn't one of those creepy crawly kind of city it's very narrow so if if like I actually keep that door locked because I don't like my grandkids going up and down the staircase it's narrow it's a little slippy it doesn't have the greatest handrail in the world it also has pipes from our uh hot water baseboard going up the side which makes me a wreck in the winter so it's just closed down all the time um and it's going to be converted into a more usable space there'll be a closet there which thank you um I don't have a single closet in the house for coat storage things like that so we're going to use what is now the door to the staircase will become a closet and everything to the right will be counter space wine fridge things like that but it is it's not really a usable staircase I almost like a ladder type yeah I never walked down that staircase terrifying um so you when did did you purchase the property October 5th 2017 fairly recently as part of that purchase process the seller I think was required by ordinance to obtain a zoning compliance certificate and that was done and he gave me a copy of that and this is from your purchase yes so rich if we could have that marked and just put in the record got extra copies here if anybody wants to see can you just confirm for me that this packet we went through I know that there this is actually looks like this in the packet yes okay kind of well this the I'll make this exhibit this I'm going to markh a unless you this I'm just going to mark this packet as exhibit a because we kind of want I'm not confident appears the same way maybe it does everything is the same as far as drawings go there's just more information on these sheets that I'm going to mark it then if it's not exactly what's in there I try to mark it so I'll mark this packet A6 through A8 as exhibit one and then certificate of zoning comp as exhibit too okay we we need I got extra copies here yeah I do too does any need this you would like one I think usually Karen anyone here want to see this Karen I anybody else respond I have a question while we're just sitting here I noticed that the driveway looks like it's being extended is that to to account for three cars yes um we extended the driveway to fit the three cars you'll see the triangle shapes are uh representing each parking space a 9 by8 parking SP okay so then it's three cars is what you're saying yeah so were we parking compliant before um I mean yes you see how large the sidey is it's just the tire strips they were a little bit short on the existing C it's also increases why was asking because extending the driveway a little bit coverage that's why also looking at that it it's all being turned into perious pavers so for the extra that it goes further back we actually save because it's not concrete anymore right but that that calculation went into it though yes yes yes Rich I just have a question this certificate what is this certificate what what's the meaning behind the certificate it it it means that zoning officer determined that the house complied with zoning at the time they bought it so it's sort of a way to capture someone put a big addition on the back and didn't didn't get a permit for it theoretically the zoning office supposed to catch how you put a an addition in the back that there was no zoning approval for it's in the side yard or whatever so this is supposed to give a buyer assurance that they're not buying something that violates zoning so okay um and it says they did an inspection as well so that that's what it's supposed to do whether it always works perfectly is another question but that's what it's supposed to supposed to do better than nothing okay most times a lot of towns have nothing so okay I have another simple question I noticed that the sidey yard setbacks right were only um two feet right now is that the air conditioning that's two feet no um the air conditioning is actually on the neighbor Lots lately um it's an existing condition we weren't intending on moving those um but the two feet is the uh distance to that back corner of the house okay is there a reason why that isn't being moved with this variance going sld after since it isn't on the whole reason for we have the setbacks is for the it doesn't you know bother the neighbors with machines running and like pool filters and things like that and with the fact that this is actually on the property of the own other their owners how does that work because that shouldn't that be in part of the setbacks that it's not 2 feet over the applicant will move those AC condenser units hbac condenser units that are on the property line we we'll move them to I guess we could say 2.5 at a minimum the distance the same from the house is we'll line it up line them up with the house okay because I also saw on that HPC exhibit a it talks about moving the HVAC units so we we had a few changes that we had to do um we had an approval for the site um where we were actually installing some retaining walls and doing some other improvements um but then upon uh submitting for the variants we had to do some very extensive storm water management um I guess installation of uh trenches and catch basins and so we had to scale back what we were changing on the outside so that to not trigger anything to that nature so if the AC units if that is something you want moved we can definitely move that that's not a problem we were just trying to do as least as possible to what's existing but improve where we can easily with the concrete yeah it's just the whole reason for the setbacks is to not disrupt the neighbors and if this is already on the property of the neighbors then we should be moving it over while we're at this at this point understood do I have to wait till we come to to make a motion for that or how does that work just put it as a condition they're agreeing to it okay I didn't know how it's actually in my report so okay yeah which we can do okay um if there's no more questions from the board I have a question this is probably a silly question but I'm looking at the the plans and still showing chimneys above the roof yep so they going to remain and you're just taking the internal of Chimney yeah so the h PC still wants to see the chimneys what we'll do is we'll add some extra framing to hold the brick it's like a faux chimney so you'll see it from the outside it won't change the look but the inside layout will SE off so you won't get the exactly exactly I wanted to ask you that question magic they float so we'll go ahead and have Craig's report okay good evening I would like to summarize my May 28th 2024 review of this property at 211 Grand Street um once again I agree with the applicant's testimony with regards to it's an existing s single family dwelling they're proposing internal additions they are making some modifications on the exterior of of the house but those include removing portions of the deck increasing setbacks um things like that um they're taking the total habitable area from 20 2171 Square ft to 2218 Square ft um the improvements also include new perious walkways Tire strips for parking of three vehicles and a new wood fence um so and I'll go through the variances as we get there but I'll roll into the completeness review and checklist requirements first uh for CN D variance checklist um under item number one the survey they referenced it on the plan but they didn't provide one to was so we would ask that that be provided as a condition of approval um item number 12 they have provided the certified list of property owners since uh the time of my review uh item number 19 I did recommend that they provide a grading and drainage plan um there are storm water issues prevalent in this uh neighborhood so we would ask that that be a condition of approval um item number 26 and 27 waivers were requested uh from and we supported those item 28 dovet Tales back into my comment with regard to 19 um which uh requires them providing the design calculations for the stormw system as a condition of approval um and then finally they asked for a waiver from providing a landscaping plan uh we did support that waiver request and then recommended deeming the application complete with regards to the zoning requirements this is site is located in the R2 District as well as the historic district um the uses conforming the lot size is undersized this is an undersized lot um with a non-conforming structure sitting on that that's being altered so the non-conforming lot Bulan are requirements the lot size requirement is 7,500 ft where the existing lot is 5,000 square ft lot width and lot Frontage requirements are 60 ft in width and Frontage um and the existing lot has 50 foot width and Frontage the rear yard setback is being increased but it's still non-conforming it's being altered so that triggers a variance 25 foot is the requirement in the rear yard 13.67% back um has 15 total and 5 foot on each side um it is an existing non-conforming condition um the proposed Dormer on the one side has a setback of 5T um so there's a setback required for that the lot coverage has a maximum permitted 40% 45.4% exists they are reconfiguring the lot uh with regards to the impervious coverage that reduces that down to 40.9% still a variance but it's a better situ better condition uh the floor area ratio has a maximum permitted of 0 4 for single family dwellings 434 exists 443 is proposed and you heard testimony from them there's no expansion of the dwelling these are all areas that become floor area ratio when you take stairs out when you take chimneys out it now becomes habitable area um and it's triggering that increase um we talked a little bit about the parking for five bedrooms three spaces are required there probably really only is two spaces um it's kind of like two and a half um but in the proposed condition they've lengthened that so they've made a conforming three spaces which are which is um an improvement so those are the variances I'll roll into the general review comments um these should be conditions of approval we ask for the roof slopes be indicated on the plans we've had some past applications where that's not been done and has triggered variants required stuff has had to come back to this board because of that so we would like to see that information be provided on the plants let's just real quick yes do the Dormers I just want to just put the smart people on it the Dormers are going to have a roof slope that's going to be okay they're not going to get any trouble with that yes okay because we've had that varant sneak up on people so if you need it we like to make sure we right that's why that's why I asked now okay um the existing air conditioning units we talked about I believe they've just agreed to relocate those um to meet or exceed the two foot setback that's on that side of the property okay so that was comment number two item number three is our standard condition that they have to provide the first floor elevation on on a plan and comply with chapter 258 for any new construction we've asked them to revise the zoning table consistent with the recommendations in our report under item number four real quick for number two your says that they the air conditioning unit should be relocated so they are on the subject property I think the applicant agreed to relocate them so that they are 2.5 ft from the sideline just like the house yes the setback shows two foot I don't know where the two fo oh it's 2 five in the front it's two in the back okay two in the back I just want to know what the in the resolution someone tell me where the AC units are going to be so I can two feet off the property two feet all right thank I I looked at the 2.5 when I glanced down yeah I I wrote meat or exceed two foot setback at that point now is that going to change the setback from the rear yard right no they're going on top of is yeah we can put them on top on top of the storage area we put them on top of the storage uh the showers in the back or the storage okay okay sorry Craig thank you just them inconsistent no way no problem uh the construction so they're eliminating a lot of impervious concrete uh ribbon strips walkways Etc and they're taking advantage of the 50% credit for lot coverage when you provide perious materials so we've asked for construction details to verify that it is indeed an imp uh pervious surfaces that that is in that is bettering the lot coverage situation item number six uh this is just me rehashing that we've requested a grading and drainage plan be provided as well as they have to comply with ordinance number 48522 which is chapter 25 minimum stormw management and Grading requirements and that runs with the with the property if there's ever any drainage issues that are caused by the development they're required to fix those item number seven we've asked for a street tree there was none um in front of the property so we've asked for that eight is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and ask the applicant to replace any broken sidewalk panels item number nine is is are the city's requirement that they have to provide the inspection escrow and the co and acceptance of improvements is tied to a satisfactory inspection item number 10 is compliance with the requirements of the shade tree commission fire department and public works department we have received fire department review dated 6424 they recommended approval Public Works recommended approval dated 65 24 shry commission recommended approval dated 53124 none of those had any comments they have to comply with any and all other state county and local approvals the project is located within the historic district we did receive notice of conceptual approval dated April 10th 20124 um they have to follow up and provide final approval from the HPC item number 13 is they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy as applicable and finally should the board Grant approval the applicant is required to revise the plans to address all conditions that the board sets and submit the requisite number of compliance plans to the board engineer for review that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has Greg I have a question uh should the site plan be changed in the rear setback it's 1811 you know your your uh chared 1892 um well that's going to change because those that is measured to the existing air condition units okay um and they're going to increase that because they said they're going to put that above the outdoor shower or you know create a pad for that so we were just going to ask them it's we're going to ask them to revise the zoning table when they make that revision to provide an accurate Dimension well the site plan should be revise yeah they're going to have to revise the site plan when they when they do that air conditioning relocation it looks like it's going to be 22 Feet 3 in right right that's what I'm guessing I think it's actually getting better yeah it's 20 it's going to be what 22 three still a variance but it's right approximately 22 ft the site plan i' be matter of fact right any other board member have anything for Craig okay at this time we'll open it up to the public within 200 ft anyone wishes to speak anyone Beyond 200 ft close to the public okay unless there is more comment the motion that I recommend being made although how you vote is up to you and this is a devarian remember they need five out of seven if you're going to vote against it please articulate your reasons why um because there's not much on the record against it um and this particular D variance the accommodations are usually things that relate to parking or adding bedrooms that that kind of stuff or um substantially more massing they the kind of things that we look for in FL ratio so there wasn't a lot of testimony supporting those concerns so if you're going to vote against it please articulate carefully why okay so this is a motion to Grant variances uh listed on page three of the engineer report subject to the conditions 1 through 14 on pages five and six and the conditions 11219 on page two with waivers 26 27 28 and 33 three on pages two and three and also the condition of relocating the air conditioning on top of the shower um which will be at least two feet from the side yard okay that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you so okay can we have that motion please I'll make a motion I'll second motion made by Mr zeter and seconded by Miss sh thank you Mr lwin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you thank you thank you madam chair board members thank you good luck in good [Music] [Applause] our next application is James and Carol Ramo 266 Grand Street yes thank thank you okay first I'm just going to swear in anyone who might be testifying are you Mr Ramo I think so sorry Mr James Ramo and Miss Katherine L can you put your mics on our board engineer remains under oath each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth St you got I do I do okay I do up good evening Madam chair board members my name is Ron gunis appearing on behalf of James and kyol Ramo property of course is 266 Grand Street and this is a property with what we feel are some very unique uh circumstances that we hope uh you will agree can justify uh some of the variance relief or request requesting this evening because I've already introduced Miss Katherine Len Mr James Ramo to my left they're sworn in so Katherine if you would uh please just briefly place your credentials on the record uh my name is Katherine lorence uh registered architect in New Jersey a member of the American Institute intitute of Architects uh National Council Board of Architects I've been living and working in Kate May County for the past 20 years and have worked uh and have been in front of this board uh several times okay chair recognize as an expert thank you yes um Katherine what why don't you take us through the existing conditions on the site what's there and then what's proposed uh this is sort of a a little tricky because when I was retained by Joe they weren't sure what they wanted to do with the house and we came up with uh several options the front of the house is a a small Cape Cod it's one and a half stories barely a half a story above very small uh the middle of the house is an addition that may have been built in the 1970s the front of the house I believe was like the 1950s or 60s and then the rear of the house is a a family room that was built uh around two before Sandy so around 2010 uh none of these uh uh and they're all connected so the house is below flood the front of the house the front two rooms of the house are really below flood they're like 5T the addition is about uh the family room is about 2T so we looked at options uh um Joe and Carol Jim and Carol wanted to expand the house for their growing family add more bedrooms and bathrooms right now there's three four makeshift bedrooms plus the family room we looked at one option of tearing everything down we looked at another option of raising everything well the Cape Cod that was built in the the 50s or 60s is really not worth saving it's it's a non-contributing building the addition that was added to it was like a weekend uh Warrior kind of thing so that isn't really worth saving the family room which was built uh again I think around n uh 2010 or so that's a really Pleasant room it's has Windows all around we have a fireplace uh there steps leading up to get to it so the other option was okay so one option would be to tear everything down one option would be to raise everything but we don't have get any benefit by raising the front two portions of the house so if we look at exhibit one exhibit one identifies what we're doing uh there is an exist on the on the uh right hand side there's an existing garage where we show a big a Black Arrow that's going to remain I think everyone can agree and Kate may we don't have enough room for cars and storage and beach chairs and so forth then I have in blue the family room we're going to lift that the 2 and 1/2 ft or so that it needs to be so that it is not only above flood but it conforms to Cape May to foot a free board and then the Red Square indicates the portion of the house that we're going to demolish so we're basically going to build a new house and connected to the existing family room um so to a further clarify uh we got we went to the HPC with a design uh HPC the first go around was not very happy we went and had several informal meetings with the HPC and we used uh if if we look at exhibit 1 a 1 a is what the front of the house will look like now if you're familiar with this area of Kate may there's a lot of Bungalows that were built in the 1920s so we used the Bungalow style as sort of our inspiration for the design of the new house we were very much aware of not overwhelming the neighborhood we purposely made this house at 32t 8 in high when we could have gone up to 40 so we tried to keep within the massing of the neighborhood across the street is a lot of old houses around the corner is a lot of Bungalows we really try to work with the HPC we've got a unanimous conceptual approval on this particular design if we go to exhibit 1B the bottom are photographs of of well we can see the arrow our little Cape Cod on either side of the little Cape Cod are the homes that were built uh during the 60s with the exception of the one to the immediate left all the other houses are non-contributing every house on this area here is non-contributing every one of those houses with the exception of that one yellow house is below flood every one of those houses if they decide that they want to tear it down would get approval or if they wanted to do Renovations they would have to raise these houses because all of them are below flood and FEMA rules require that if you want to do any renovation you're going to have to raise it so I did a diagram to show you the existing houses that are on the Block what they would look like if they were raised the five fet that they would need to comply to FEMA and our new proposed Bungalow and the top top line would be the the height that the Bungalow or a new house could be so any one of these houses could come down and go up further uh within right of of the current zoning regulations but I think you can see clearly on my handdrawn sketch that the house does not overwhelm any of its neighbors and it really fits into the area if you walk around the street you're going to see half a dozen Bungalows that are very similar to this so that is is uh I think an important aspect of the design of this house and then uh finally I didn't bring little 11 by 17 sheets of paper but you all have a site plan in you know the big site plan and uh there are a couple of things that we did in addition to trying to work with our neighbors is the bulk of we had a a survey done the averaging survey because most of these houses are more forward of what the setback allows uh the setback allows uh 25 ft this house with the averaging survey the front of this house could be at 15.6 ft the front yard setback so what we did is we put the bulk of the house at 19 ft we added a front porch a 6t front porch and then as per the request of the HPC we have steps that lead to the front sidewalk those steps encroach on the 15.6 setback by two and a half 2.3 ft so that's that's the one variance that we're seeking is to have three steps in the in the setback so Katherine you mentioned base flat elevation and two feet of freeboard you you tell us what that is in terms of How High your your porch or your first floor has to be off the ground and how that affects the steps that um have to be the number of steps you need to access a house that's conforming to base flood elevation well currently there are two steps three steps up to get to the first floor in order to conform to the FEMA uh regulations and the height up we have to go up a total of 1 two 3 four five six 7 eight steps we're going approximately 5T up from where we are now in order to conf conform to the current rules and regulations and this particular area is a is a very wet area this is a low Ling area of the city and I think everyone knows that uh due to the fact that there is a giant Creek in the back that's they constantly building big big round tubes to get the water to go um the other items that I wanted to go over is the Lots coverage currently the lot coverage is 50.1% uh it appears that there was a variance issued many years ago when this family room was built and that was allowed we are proposing to make the lot coverage at 42.3% so we're reducing the loot coverage from what it is today at 50.1% we're reducing the lock coverage to 42.3% and then finally we get to the F this lot is an undersiz lot it also is a peculiar lot in the fact that it is shorter by about 15 ft than just about every single lot on that block and through uh investigation I know Ron has found some interesting information uh but on this site plan the back portion the back portion of this lot that Old Creek which is now underground cuts into the property there's like an elbow there or something I couldn't quite figure out what it was I think we know now what it is but it cuts into the property shortening this property by uh I think about 15 feet and to be honest I I I checked the different Lots on the tax map and we are uh about 1,400 Square ft less than any other block uh lot on that size so so you said on that size is that what you name on that side the other Lots we're about 1,400 Square ft than comparable Lots on that block so in my mind I was thinking that and I know that the owners have tried to buy that little piece of land in the back so that they could use that extra space for their house um the city has denied selling that little piece of property and there are numerous reasons why I I don't know um but my logic was if we had had a um that extra 1,400 square feet everything that I've designed would be under the F would be under the lot coverage and I can get into the specific numbers um we have increased the the size of the house but made it more functional obviously this little Cape Cod only had two bedrooms upstairs we're now making it two and a half Stories the third story is going to be sort of the grandkids cousins rooms we have two bedrooms on the on the third floor that are over Dormers but but most of the third floor 50% of the third floor is uh under 6' 6 where the the roof slopes down and that's a perfect area for kids as a kids I I used to stay in the attic and I just loved having these short ceilings if you think it's necessary I can go through the floor plans um well before you do that I just want to draw your attention back to the the front of the house yes so you've actually overall improved the front yard setback condition because I think the existing house uh to the front of the porch is currently at 16 yes and when the house is reconstructed the front of the porch will be um 19.1 correct so the face of the structure is coming back 3 feet yes even though you could go by right the whole structure out to 15 uh 15.6 ft to the front property line yes we're we're back to 19 so you're three foot further back and some of that is we are three foot further back some of that is is is by Design and some of that is also because of the extra stairs that we have to add in order to elevate the house and those extra stairs they're the ones that protrude into the into the permitted front yard set back yes so overall on a balance pushing back the house the face of the structure of the house back 3 feet in return for having just the the the a couple front steps go down into the front yard setback is that uh is that a good balance to strike is the benefit of pushing the house back out way the uh intrusion into the front yard by the steps yes it does because it allows us uh We've hire have since a landscape designer we are now able to put two trees in the front yard uh and more vegetation and we have uh front steps that sort of follow the character of many of the other Bungalows around the area in in that neighborhood so your streetcape is improved by this and your open air light and space going down the street is improved because the house sits back a little further than it could be and in addition to sitting back a little bit further we have a front porch so not only do we have the 19t setback but we have a 6ft front porch so the bulk of the house is 19+ 6 so the bulk of the house is the face of the structure I'll call it uh is past the 25 ft which is what's required yes and aesthetically that's an improvement well I mean the massing of the house fits in very well with the massing of the other structures it is not overwhelming to its neighbors at all so the the person going down Grant Street on Foot bicycle by car when they see the front of this house this house is could be set back further than other newer structures to be built in the future because they could come up to 15 ft yes the height will be lower yes the height would be lower and your sidey yard setbacks are going to be compliant the sidey yard setbacks are compliant so a person going down the street is going to see a house that's conceivably lower and further back than all the other houses along the streets gate yes they will but it will also blend in a little better with the neighbors the the historic homes across the street I'm sorry did you say it's going to be can the question was are they going to be the same height as the houses on the street well the houses across the street vary in height so this this proposed new house is not going to be any bigger than any of the houses across the street but that's your okay won't be bigger than the house well there's not a three story house on that on that whole side of the street I mean I don't mean to be disagreeable but that's not I mean you do the chart that shows when they're raised they'll be of similar height but when this is constructed it's going to be much taller than all the houses on that side I'm not saying it's a I'm not saying I'm not trying to talk bad about your application but I mean that testimony doesn't see I want to make sure I I'm about to write it down I want to make sure that's really what you mean to say you're saying that on this street which I happen to have on Google Earth in front of me at the moment that this height this house after constructed is going to be of similar height as the houses to its left and right there's not another three-story house and none of them are built to FL go ahead cl cl okay what what I'm what I'm saying is is that on this this side of the street right okay none of the houses on either side are contributing none of them are currently um at the right height that they should be these hous talking about base flood elevation yes all of these houses on on either side except for the yellow one are below flood way below flood I but that's not the testimony I was about to write down the question was are the is this house going to fit in with the houses around it on the street and you said yes they're going to be this this house is going to be the same height as the houses around it I just before I wrote that down I want to make sure that are you talking about the height what because it's going to be much taller I'm not I'm not talking about your house it's very nice I'm just saying that testimony I want to make sure before I put that immortalize it in here I want to make sure you really mean okay there are some houses further down the block that are higher than this okay okay I chose not to do the whole block just the immediate ones so this house will be about 5 ft higher than the non-conforming house to its immediate left and it's and its immediate right and you say higher mean in terms of Base flood Elation but not in terms of fit I I think you're I'm talking about the actual height of the house so Building height is measured to the peak of the roof is that what we're talking about yes okay so if we look at the house to the right if it was not raised if it was where it is now our new house yes is going to be higher than the house on the right hand side by how much the yellow uh the the one on the right hand the one on the left they'll almost I'm sorry I didn't I said it by how much is it going to be higher about 5et about the distance of the flood but the house is lower than what's permitted by the ordinance that's right by how much um the house is uh allowed to go up to 40 ft above flood and right now the house is going to 32.8 Ft above flood so any house constructed in the future should those houses on either side be demolished if reconstructed could be actually higher than this house by right yes that's that's I think that's what you yes I don't think it's accurate testimony to say that currently this house will be the same height as other houses near it I mean I I live I live down the street from it so I know that's not true but what I think your testimony is consistent with your exhibit you're saying when these H As you move forward in the future and other houses begin to comply with flood this house will fit in with those very nicely yes that's what you meant to say that wasn't a question you were necessarily asked at that time so if I wrote down what you said you would have been testifying I think inaccurately I know you wouldn't mean to do that so that's very clear so okay I understand right yeah same page okay good can can I just have a clarification um what is the flood elevation on ground level for this house and what is is it is it 3et above flood elevation right now and they're going another 5T above that yeah because I I see on exhibit ex1 B there's a line drawn of where these houses if they were raised that that same height but I don't understand because I'm sure the block isn't level it goes up or whatever I just want to know what is the elevation the house and what are you raising it above flood elevation by how many feet we would have to ra we're going to be raising the house 5 feet so that it is up at the proper height two base flat elevation not above base it'll be above yeah 5T 5T includes the 2T of free board that we need in K May it's no higher than is required that's what you're saying it's no higher than K May requires that's right that that's what I was trying to get that's what they're asking they're not building any higher than no because what they need to do I was getting confused on what it was and what it was required to be higher than base flood that's why it's confusing but they're no higher than is required by our ordinance in other words some people go higher so they can put storage in a garage underneath not doing that's not the case here you're only as high as you have to be to comply with base flood elevation exactly knowing that that includes two additional feet Yes based on K ordinance yes okay okay can't be low you can't be lower than that your bottom floor where going any higher than once required okay then my next question is you you made a a you point out that the porch will be I think be further away from the street the new porch but what I'm seeing here it's it was it was was it 16 ft and now you're only going to be was it 13t from the street right no the steps that have the surve here's the survey cuz what what what are the steps now steps now are at 14 ft okay the steps are now the front of the porch is 16 ft the base of the structure is 20 ft okay existing existing and then what is it going to be proposed the steps are 13.3 okay the front of the porch is 19.1 and the house would be 25 and plus 5 ft for the face of the house so the the porch which is now 16 will be 19 will go back is that right the face of of the porch the face of the porch is at 19 exterior why why I'm asking this is that I think it's I want to make sure that when you looked at the one properties that one of the pictures I showed you that you look to the left they're all like on the same and I think it would be very detrimental to the other buildings if you moved out and then you're blocking their views to the left and right because you want to see more up and down the street I wanted to make sure it was staying Conformity with the other houses we're in we in a further 3T deeper into the property that's what I was trying to figure out expand the view that you're concerned about they have they'll have right I didn't want to block the air flow of it's not okay thank you for that clarification trying to understand your justification for the floor area ratio variance we're we're not we're not done yet and we'll give you some further justification to hopefully clarify that we've just only we've only touched upon it okay so that's a good time to and this this this picture is included in the um application but I have it blown up a little bit okay and I'm just while while you hand that out round I'm going to summarize the the things we just discussed my notes are going to say the house will fit in with the height of the other houses as they begin to comply with flood elevation it is taller than some than some of the houses around it at present they're not building it any higher than is required to be by ordinance yes we're building lower than what is required okay no no you're not building any higher than is required to be by the ordinance meaning you're not you're not only higher above flood elevation yes that thank you I'll explain I'll go through what these are okay says they are not building at any higher elevation than is required by the ordinance okay is that your testimony what I summarize what they are yes [Music] yes thank you all right what I just GED you rich off you want to mark them yes sir separate exhibits okay there's an a uh I guess it's a Google Earth thing yeah that that no that is the uh pictometry from the Kate May County tax website and that's indicated what did you call it topometry pictometry pictometry that's that's that yeah that's the Kate May County I'm calling it an Ariel I don't know how to spell that well actually I don't I fixes it every time I try top they they superimpose the lot lines onto these aerial images and and please note they do so very inaccurately you can see that they're jogged but they're they're close enough uh for our purposes so um what you're looking at here is from the Kate May County uh tax website and what that shows if you look at the lower image is all of the Lots along Grant Street going down to the right and to the left if you'll notice each one of those lots backs up against what used to be Cape May Creek it goes all the way to it everyone except Mr Ramos's lot and his neighbor next door which have this little car valve which if you look in the upper portion the upper photograph which I took the square footage on using their tools that they have and that's an approximation of 14291 square ft which you have to get the lines right over the existing line so that's the area uh that lot and the lot next door are the only ones for some reason and we didn't know why didn't go all the way back to Kate May Creek now when you're going down Grant Street you see all the Lots all the houses they're all the you're looking at them the front's all the same widths all the same you go down person on the street and the person in the neighborhood has no idea that these two houses these two lots have the rear portion of them chopped off now back there we all know it's super low K May Creek it was drainage it it's used for drainage I don't know if there's piping back through there or not miss lorett seems to think that there's some major infrastructure back there that runs Kate May Creek to to to drain that's what that land is utilized for I'll take some testimony from Mr rol letter that'll that'll indicate that he communicated with Town the city manager uh Mike Ro Express an interest to try to purchase this with the idea to add the area to his property knowing that you're never going to build on this that it's restricted that it's going to be utilized for drainage but then it could be counted towards floor area ratio and coverage so you heard testimony from Miss lorence to the effect that if this land area would be included into the total area it would be more than enough land area to compensate to to in to result in a floor area ratio and coverage that would be compliant now why do we say that we say that and when I opened uh the hearing I indicated that there were some very unique circumstances I'm not aware of anything like this in the city in the municipality where you have this set of circumstances where you have a lot that's shorted in the back for one reason or another compared to all of the other Lots in the same and similar circumstance this lot for some reason had land taken away from it so we we just tried to answer that question as to why just to understand this so where did where did this lot come from how did it come into the possession of of the municipality and why they don't want to sell it probably because it's not the work involved with doing something like that with ordinances and surveys and time you get done with all that stuff it's honestly probably not worth it so uh Mr Ramo agreed to have a title search ordered um and I have those documents they're available for everybody they're pretty big um but I excerpted out two pages from the title search the first page you'll see is a map that will was part of the Grant from the state of New Jersey to the city of Kate May and that shows where uh Cape Island Creek was and in the tide land search that'll be highlighted that land was granted to the city of K May uh in uh 1930 um because it was land that was formerly flowed by tidle wooder that land in New Jersey is owned by the state even if it's a creek that runs through the middle of the city at some point New Jersey has their hand out saying P me for your land we'll give it to you we'll sell it to you or we'll lease it to you repair in lease repair in Grant 1930 for $750 they granted to Kate May $750 what was Kate May Creek um in this interestingly this uh map on the grant the railroad tracks are depicted those railroad tracks run adjacent to Kate May Creek they sort of cross over in places I I juxtapose that over a current tax map which is page two of this document and what you see is the railroad had a switch right there at that location for another line that went out so I can never be certain but it's an assumption that the uh railroad had some infrastructure located at that point which contained a switch and that's the reason why that area was in possession of the railroad um in 1938 West Jersey Seashore railroad Co sold the track area and right of way to Manor Real Estate and trust that was 1938 um in 1941 Manor Real Estate and Trust company sold uh to the city of Kate May 9 acres for $4,000 and if you look through the meets and Bounds description it it it it's pretty much the Kate May Creek area and the tracks that follow along with it so for virtue of the fact that back in the 20s there was Railroad in infrastructure behind this house resulted in this lot being carved off a little bit now the point of all this is and we all know that's never going to be constructed on it's open area it's whether whether Mr rmo was successful in his purchase or not it's an area that we think for this piece of property and and the one next door the only two to be treated the same and similarly with all of the other Lots located along Grant Street and where here to to ask you to to do that to look at it that way and to consider it that way so that these two lots are not penalized and short it on what is the floor area ratio and and the coverage so we're asking just to say that because of your reasons that you're concerned about floor area ratio which is the intensity of use on the property and the ability of the property to handle the the structure that's built on there we don't think that those issues will have that that will have a negative P impact on the municipality or the zoning ordinance because this land behind this property will never be developed it's always going to be drainage it's always going to be open space so to miss Loren's point when you're walking down the street and you're looking at this house either now or in the future no one's going to be able to say hey look this house is bigger than what's allowed this house has more flare floor area ratio this house has more coverage because the person going down Grant Street as I know it before isn't going to know that the back of the property is chopped off by so many feet back here so it's it's going to it's going to look the same it's going to appear the same and it's not going to have any negative impact because the land area is all there open and and preserved in the rear but that's what it is I mean that's the lot you know I mean it was a nice presentation but the lot is what the lot is and there's a lot of undersized Lots in Kate may as far as I know because I live on one you know and I guess you know a 31,000 or you know 3100 foot house is a pretty big house so with what the lot that you have to work with I mean realistically how big of a house could you put on that lot I mean currently uh we're 334 square feet over the allowable 40% okay yep but if we included this 14400 Square ft we would be under 226 Square fet so that little piece of land has just pushed us that's what you have oh that's what you have okay so now and and that's true that's the size of the lot so we're here asking for a variance so the applicant has to meet certain criteria to justify a variance if the applicant can meet that criteria then the board should Grant the variance so what's what what's the criteria the criteria is can can the land area accommodate the problems associated with an increased floor area ratio so I hope I demonstrate through Miss Loren's testimony that through Visual appearance you're not going to know any different because those lots are the same width all along Grant Street going down for blocks on either side can I just kind of phrase a little different Ron because I I wan to I am not telling anyone how to vote you know I I never do that hopefully you all know that I don't do that and I'm not doing it here I just want to describe the situation as I say it I'm not a big fan of the argument that I should get a variance from FL ratio because my lot is smaller I just had that happen in West Kate May and respectfully I kind of disagree with my board's vote on that someone had a small lot and they built a big house on it and they said well our lot is small and I said well it is a ratio okay but they approved it and I'm not sure I would have if I were voting okay but I do see a distinguishing feature in this I just want to make sure everyone understands you're free to disagree with it but I just want to distinguish this from other situations that may come before you where someone happens to have a smaller lot than everyone else if you have a smaller lot you build a smaller house you PID less for the lot you get a smaller house that's kind of how life works this is a little bit different in my eyes I'm going to explain why I think so because the the reason from the exterior aside from parking and um things like that massing is what your engine your board engineer talks to you about when he talks about flare ratio it's supposed to be a concept massing is the is the house too big for the lot okay and what Mr gazonas is trying to persuade you um is that because this section in the back even though it's owned by the city even though it but it's it's never going to be used for anything to a passer by from the rear which no one's really going to see it from the front from the rear it kind of looks like part of their lot so in terms of the massing in terms of this appearing to be a house that's too big for a lot to people who are just looking at it who aren't looking at a tax map okay and aren't looking at a survey it's going to look like an appropriate sized house for what appears to be that lot most of the time that won't be the case if they backed up against another property and both properties were fenced in on their lot lines it would appear to be too big of a house for that size lot but because that's not the case here where it pack backs up against a scrap that's owned by the City by happen stance because of a railroad 80 years ago it it looks like it so I'm not making I don't mean that you can vote if you vote against it it's it's almost So within your discretion to do it I'm not saying you're wrong to do it I am just saying that in the past you may have heard me say or in the future you may hear me say it's a ratio if you have a smaller lot you get a smaller house but this one does have a distinguishing feature where I'm not going to make that still a smaller lot though it is a smaller lot I'm just saying in terms of massing it won't appear the same way but you're right it's a smaller lot and it's a really big house and it's going to be raised and I get all that so you're within your discretion I'm not telling you how to vote I am just saying that you may have heard me say that before and I want to explain why that is a little different in my mind this time than other times I would have said that but it's not necessary that that they if it went up for sale not necessary that they would be able to purchase it maybe the person on the other side of them might purchase it CU it it doesn't if it goes up if the city decides it's just remember there's another strip there too behind that which I think is I don't know who owns that big rectangle behind it who owns this that's the creek right that's that's that's the area city of K Creek the odds of selling that scrap piece to somebody else but but theoretically anybody could purchase it in those property because the City opens it up to anybody that property is is touching it or no whatever right the adjacent owner gets a first bite of buying city property but the two owners on your side would be adjacent owners too um well no no no I mean the person behind it could theoretically so if the city was selling the creek they might sell it to that other because it looks like that big house owns that one little piece of property behind the house next to them listen I I I am that is not a zoning question that's a City Attorney question here right here this right here I don't you'll have to use your own discretion on what you think might actually happen to that piece of property and who might buy it I I can't tell you the law on that I've said enough about it already I was just pointing out the concept of massing and why sometimes I I say small lot it's a ratio I don't understand that argument um in this case I understand the argument doesn't mean it's it's exactly right just means that I understand the argument other times I don't understand the concept of well our lots a th you know a th000 square fet smaller so ignore your ratio that doesn't make sense to me when I hear those arguments and I've said that before on this one they're just pointing out that that section I think they're saying sort of in terms of visual massing it functions as part of the lot in terms of visual massing am I explaining that in a way that makes sense to you yes I understand I I understand their argument um and I'm not directing the board one way or the other um for instance yacht Avenue a lot of those lots their lot lines go go back into Devil's reach mhm but they still count they get to count that lot area towards their floor area ratio um and this you know they don't Poss these guys don't possess this but they're showing it as open space and to the naked eye if you're looking down their their back property you're going to think that that's part of theirs you're not you're not aware where the where the lot lines are I I understand the argument um I probably as a planner would have done a a floor area analysis or a square footage analysis for the the neighboring lots have do you have that information I'm just well I have over here I mean you you your analysis is more towards the height and the massing but I'm just curious how this fits in with the square footages and floor area ratios of the adjoining Lots well uh for example uh this is lot s lot nine is 9,300 square feet um and what's do you know what the dwelling that sits on it what how many square foot is it would not be a favorable analysis for okay there's a lot of Big Lots with small houses just around them I'm not saying it may not always be that way but if you look at it I mean you can look at the backyards of these houses look at the size of those backyards all right but that doesn't mean I'm not saying that's a negative towards your application I'm just saying if they did that I don't know that it would if it would massively help you I would invite to adjourn and present it I just don't think it's going to be no I I I think the point is I mean and you just look up and down up and down Grand Street from from the Aerials um you know what the question is you know why why would why would these two lots be be penalized you just these two lots are picked out of every lot along Grant Street running two blocks on either side and these are the only ones where the the city took this this this piece of ground or the railroad before then and the city took possession of it rather and they're the only two and these two lots get get penalized you can't you can't build a bigger house so I mean let's say hypothetically every house along Grant Avenue gets built out to the maximum and you're going to be looking at two houses that are smaller because the floor area ratio shrinks them down a little bit why explain that well because the city owns a little piece of ground behind them so these two are too smaller well yeah you could say well yeah that's tough you know that's the lot they bought you can say that but we're here to ask for a variance and give the board some rationale and justification to do that um that you know the the the zoning ordinances are not carved in stone to where you could never Grant a variance from them flu ratio I get it it is what it is and generally if you have a lot like uh Mr King is describing that's just so big and you come in and you say well we just it's just not big enough we want some bigger no you there's no basis I think is what Mr King is saying there's no legal basis to justify the grant of that variance so we come in here and we try to satisfy the negative criteria on which on a d variance is very important and we explain why this doesn't affect the Neighborhood Mr King was very eloquent in in describing that uh Miss lorence described the massing of the building and why that's not going to affect the uh the the the public good um we also have to satisfy the negative criteria that it's not a substantial impairment to the Zone plan and zoning ordinance well I hope I've done that by by providing information that shows that these might be the only two lots certainly the only two lots on Grand Street that are in this condition so if you did Grant the variance it's not a situation where Mr King points out that well everybody with a small lot now that wants a bigger house well they did it here they did it there and I know boards get tired of hearing about the term precedent whatnot but we avoid that problem as well so I hope that we satisfied the negative criteria on this um and also the specific standard to justify a flary ratio variance is that the site can accommodate the problems associated with greater increase uh flary ratio so we have no visible effect we have no phys physical effect and the problems of the Flor area would result in I think how many square feet of additional floor area are we talking about about 300 about 300 now it it it doesn't make any difference to me or or Mr Ramo whether this piece of property is owned by the city and it's restricted with a drainage easement or it's part of the property and it's restricted by a drainage easement I guess what we're here to ask you at the end of the day is let's you know try to undo what was done in 1920s when they put this railroad through and they took the infrastructure out but they kind of left the ground marking where the infrastructure went and maybe it should have been straightened out back then to even up this lot with all the other ones so we're here to say let's let's look at that why was it done why is it like that you know um let's let's fix that and we'll Grant this variance and these two lots this property in particular can be just like all the other ones that's that's what we're asking we've laid out this testimony and and this evidence to to all support that to meet the criteria that we have to meet to satisfy the board that that that's met and that we can um the board can can uh Grant the relief from the zoning ordinance that's this requested do you want me to answer the question that you had asked about some of the other Lots I was just wondering if that was going to be part of your testimony well I would like to say that a lot that's right next the next over lot is um the lot is uh 9,300 square feet so the floor area ratio would allow a house to be almost 700 ft bigger than what we're asking for um so that's sort of what the difference he was asking existing structures yeah I was just no that's an existing structure could be built what do you say a lot of times people come in for a FL ratio variance and they demonstrate that it's an old neighborhood and that the floyer ratio variances of the existing properties are consistent with the floyer ratio variance that they're requesting so that we just had one over on um Stockton I think it was or right near Stockton one of those toir maybe right and every house there had a FL even though the maximum was 40 everyone had a 73 ratio and they were looking for 65 so it demonstrated that Mas was consistent so but that won't work here because it's a huge lots of small houses yeah but what I'm saying is is that the houses that are on this block are probably in the future going to be all demolished because the land is way too valuable right now and to lift these houses is just not a just not practical so they're going to they're going to demolish this block they're going to they're going to put in the maximum height they can and the houses will be bigger than our little house and the houses will have more floor area ratio and they'll be taller than our house well I don't know if you can really say what the future is going to hold I mean that's really like having a crystal ball I mean cuz next to me they tore the house down and they didn't put the house up up covering everything so to say that everybody's going to you know tear down a house and put up a bigger house isn't always the truth it's not always true but it seems to be happening more and more well I just I just think at this point you're just saying allowed to build a bigger house than what's there now because they would be following the current zoning ordinances in the other direction from you the Lots get smaller and smaller as they go down the streets I don't know let's have have Craig do his report and then we can discuss more after that okay I'm going to summarize my May 20th 2024 memorandum for the property at 2 266 Grant Street um there is a typo on the cover of my my thing this was originally indicated at lot six it's actually lot seven I think there was a correction made to some on some of them um I just want to make sure it's clear for the record um so this is a single family detached dwelling you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating what is proposed and the the hierarchy of their design considerations with regards to which part of the uh which part of the dwelling they're saving and which part of they're demolishing and rebuilding new um so they're actually increasing the habitable area from what exists at 19212 foot of four bedrooms to a single family dwelling with a habitable area of 3,134 square feet and is being increased to six bedrooms and I'm going to move into the completeness review and the checklist requirements for C variances and D variances under item number 18 we've asked that the signature approval block be added to the grading and drainage plan as a condition of approval item 26 was the location of some utility and drain pipes Etc um affecting the track they asked for a waiver from that um we supported that waiver um item 27 is a similar checklist item that um allows for uh provides utility information on the plan they've asked for a waiver from that and we've supported that waiver request because there are existing utilities servicing the site and finally they've asked for a waiver from providing a landscaping plan we uh recommended that that be provided as a condition of approval since essentially this will be almost new construction and did recommend deeming the application complete with regards to the variances this is an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot uh I'll talk about the non-conforming lot U portions of it first the lot size requirement in the R2 district is 7,5 500 ft this is slightly under sized at 7,000 sare ft the lot width requirement is 60 ft uh it is existing at 50 feet and the lot Frontage requirement is also 60 feet and the lot Frontage is 50 feet the variances that um go along with the structure um Miss lorence mentioned that they're permitted with a lot setback of 15.6 6 ft they're taking advantage of the lot set lot setback averaging there's an averaging done by a surveyor it's certified they provided that information so that is the required setback of 15.6 feet as opposed to the 25 foot that's normally required in the district the porch was set back at 19.1 FT um and that was previously approved by the 2007 Cap May zoning board resolution the stair is proposed at 13.3 ft um that's the nearest setback measurement from the right away to the face of the stair so there's a variance required for that the lot coverage requirement is being bettered but is still a non-conforming situation 40% is the maximum permitted at one point at it's actually during that 2007 zoning board approval 53 53% was approved on that site uh I believe it exists at 50.1% based on the calculations provided and they're proposing 42.3% so there's a variance necessary for that the floor area ratio 0.40 is the maximum permitted for a single family dwelling the existing is 0.274 and what they're proposing is 0.447 s uh there I think we just touched on parking but for six bedrooms they're required to have three parking spaces in accordance with the residential site Improvement standards they are providing those on the plan so that's a conforming situation um I do go into analysis of the uh detached garage but that's not being changed there is one existing non-conformity with regards to that but it's not being changed at all so that's a summary of the variances I think we talked a lot about the floor area ratio and I'll be happy to answer any questions the board has uh typically we rely on the Coventry Square versus Westwood uh Zoning Board of adjustment uh case which states that the uh which set forth that a floor area ratio variance must only show that the site will accommodate the problems associated with a floor area larger than that permitted by the ordinance um I also like to lean towards our master plan the whole reason for setting forth the floor area ratio excuse me was to address a problem with massing within the city we had these huge monolithic looking buildings that were being constructed the city set forth the floor area ratio control to make sure that those were now in proportion with the lot size so the the master plan goes into great detail um they talk about I Christmas Island was uh one of the you know the the one of the biggest developments of that was the what pushed the board to uh to move in the direction of requiring we're establishing a floor area ratio requirement okay um General revie review comments are on page five of six of my report we ask for the lowest floor information to be provided on the a plan and also set forth the condition that they have to comply with chapter 258 for flood damage protection whenever you're dealing with new construction um item number two we've asked for the signature block on the grading and drainage plans um item number three is our standard condition that they should revise the zoning table the reflect comments in the review memo item four once again they are also in as part of their minimizing or reducing the lot coverage they're taking advantage of the 50 % per impervious perious uh surfacing so they provided pervious surfaces they count as 50% lot coverage so they have to provide construction details to verify that those are indeed perious item number five they have provided a grading and drainage plan um I would always recommend one for this neighborhood it is subject to frequent flooding so whenever we have an applicant come in we always request that they do something to better the situation um so they have provided that we found the plan acceptable um but as a other standard condition they have to comply with chapter 525 which is the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements and that runs with the development of the lot item number six we've requested that they provide one street tree um and under number seven uh dove tailes into that the landscaping and vegetation plan has not been provided but we recommend recommended that be provided as a condition of approval and show the required Landscaping item number eight is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk um after construction and um have the have the developer uh replace the sidewalk to satisfaction the board engineer item number nine is our standard condition that they have to provide the required um inspection escrow and that the co is tied to an acceptable inspection item 10 is the comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission fire department and public works department we did receive letters from the fire department dated [Music] 524 24 recommending approval with no comments the public works department issued a recommendation of approval dated 52324 with no comments the shade tree commission recommended approval uh dated 6:14 24 with no comments um they're required to any approvals required on them complying with all other necessary state county and local approvals item number 12 is they are required to provide evidence of final historic preservation commission approval they did give us evidence of conceptual dated January 9th 2024 so is there any um contingencies with that HPC one do they require you to do anything I'm sorry usually they put an exhibit with it I didn't know there was will have to go back to the HBC for f for final but I know with the conceptual was there anything that they requested in the in that approval the conceptual approval we comply to everything that the HPC had asked and I had a separate meeting with them and it's on record that we are complying with their conceptual so all the changes were made to these plans that's all I want to know these are current plans yes I I just have one quick question are you done I'm sorry I'm not done but sorry if it's regarding that you can ask we'll pause when you're talking about the setbacks we me wait and ask you that question when you're done okay let me finish yeah go ahead we'll back all right okay okay so we talked about those approvals HPC approval we are now on item number 13 that the comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy whichever is applicable and finally should the board Grant approval they are required to revise the plans to address all conditions of approval and submit the number the requisite number of plans to the board engineer for review that is a summary now I'm happy to answer any questions before we do that may I add Mr haris that we we did um obtain and submit a landscaping plan but it sounds like it didn't make it to you for it looks like this there there were 20 copies dropped off yeah I don't I don't have any of that it was not part of my review who prepared it I forget the guys [Music] Leen just it was not part of my review so if it's already prepared we can but I just wanted the board know that the applicant did thank you go over that her okay uh we'll we'll address that as a part of compliance um it's already been prepared so it shouldn't be any not a problem um now M so the family room that's going to be raised how high is that being raised how high is the house going to be raed no the family room she my notes say 2.5 ft I guess I'm why I'm asking is because we really don't see any plans for raising it I didn't know what they're you know raising the putting parking underneath I I don't know because we seem like we don't discuss that they not raising anything any higher than is required by the flood ORD well that was only the house itself I didn't know that contained to the family room because we the family room uh the family room will be raised about 2 and 1/2 ft because it was under a different code when it was built where the front of the house has to be raised five feet in order to comply but you're not the family room any higher than is required by the to comply and clarify there's no storage no parking possible underneath the and it will be about at flood height it be above flood and they'll all be at the same height okay that's all that's the HPC doesn't allow them to raise the structure higher than what's required to accommodate parking or anything so a lot you know Frog Hollow had a lot of houses that were being raised up and they looked excessively tall because there are fitting parking under it um that's that's going away now okay my other question has to do with that family room setback qu this map here it looks like it's 3.7 feet versus the 5.9 feet for the side for the side yard setbacks I was just questioning that this is the handout that you're looking at it's the same 5 foot this I did not review this handout as part of my Anis so I looked 37 here what the question this is more of a question for Miss L anyway so okay I have a five foot setback in the front yeah 3.7 6 point 6.4 in the front this is the old the the 3.7 is an elevation okay and that's where they're getting the yeah there there are there are elevations that were on the base mapping plan um so look down that side property line so and there it's overwritten it looks to me like the 5.9 existing is that Dimension okay that's all I was I was question and it's overwritten on top of a 3.7 which is a elevation Spot Shot okay and my other question has to do um where are the AC units positioned on this I'm sorry the HVAC units oh the HVAC uh C units are going to be on the roof of the family room and two of them are going in the back of the family room so if we were to pull out A3 we show two condensers family room okay all I'm just making sure that it was it's not yeah that's all all the hbac condensers meet the set back requirements yes they do that's all I wanted to know thank you yes they do and then Craig when do parking spots increase we had five and it was three spaces this is six bedrooms and it's three seven bedrooms it turns into four space thank you that's and that's the residential site Improvement standards they every bedroom is in half space but the residential site Improvement standards say you round down okay so it's every other room that you get to that next and it looks like there's plenty of parking for that oh here's the one I see now yeah five is five is three spaces seven bedrooms is four spaces okay anyone any other questions thank you I'd like to say a few words when I can't when you tell me it's appropriate so tell me when do you really want to yes absolutely absolutely okay great so a couple things uh one my son is back here James if you'd stand up and my sonin Anthony so part of the reason that we're doing these changes when you look at the pl and you look at the second floor there's two very big bedrooms on that floor the problem is is those bedrooms have sloped ceilings right so James is 6'5 he currently has CH two children Anthony's probably six something and he currently has two children so currently now they all live in that space so we currently house 12 people in the house we're looking to create six bedrooms two people for each bedroom and that's why we trying to move to six bedrooms and as cther mentioned earlier to create that kind of space upstairs for the grandkids right uh we there's no additional use we were very fortunate we looked at this house right before the pandemic in 2019 we're the first people to look at it we put an offer in that day and we bought it we closed before the end of December I was a little surprised when I got the survey and I saw that my back fence was 10 feet behind my property line on the city property for the last 15 years right so ironic that property is number 266a and we happen to be 266 so I don't know why the person who when they made the renovations put the fence there I don't know why the city allowed them to do that but we assumed that God say back then that that was part of the property obviously we knew right before we bought it it wasn't because we had a servey that told us that I view this as as a an an opportunity to do something positive for both the city and for ourselves so what we're looking to do is raise this house above above flood level right which is good for the city it's good for us I get that letter every year I call the the fellow the engineer in charge of it and ask him every year is there really grant money available to raise your home he says no there's no gr money available we got to put that in the letter so we're looking to raise the house so it meets that code and it's safer and better for everybody in the long R we're maintaining the appropriate setbacks on both sides of the house we're setting the house back 5 feet further than it was originally we're putting in the existing uh the drainage that's required so we had a drainage engineer we're going to put all that drainage in that you need to require we put in the Landscaping that we need to be required so we're trying to do everything we can and we're taking a home that currently has no historic value and develop the home working with the historic preservation commission that will have a historic value to it it will look like it it fits in the houses across the street ironically it's different on that side of the street right right across most a blue home three stories high right that's about 5 foot back from the from the sidewalk but all the homes on that side of the street are very close to the sidewalk that must just be the way the zoning is on that side of the street this side was developed after the railro went out so they're newer homes and they have different setbacks but I think our setback is appropriate in the front it's it's appropriate in the back we're also trying to go to do something positive in the sense of going from a 50% lot coverage down to 42% lot coverage so we think there's a lot of positive things that we're trying to do the only thing we're asking you to grant for us in addition to what has already been granted in the past is this this this area ratio uh addition just so we can make the home as functional as possible we tried to be both economical and ecological when we did this design it didn't make sense to tear down a room that's only been there for 15 years that's a beautiful room to redesign the whole lot so we we kept that existing space and we tried to make and the addition is actually smaller right so the square footage of the uh new home is smaller it just happens to go up higher and we're a good 8T below the maximum height while being above the above the flood level so we think we've done everything in our power to make this an acceptable alternative for everyone involved and I think Ron's tried to give you a reason to justify to making the exception but I realize it's something that you're going to do uh based on what you think is best for the city I'm just thinking that we've done our part to try to make a good Improvement my grand my wife's grandparents been coming here forever her parents coming here forever we've been coming here forever now our kids are coming here forever and my grandkids are coming here forever so we're going to be there and things have changed a little bit because now they all work remotely there's six I had three children three uh significant others five out of the six work 100% remote so they can be here more often they just need a space to work within and some privacy so I beg you to to to look inside and say what's the positives in this and what's the negatives and can we can we Grant this success okay so I I think everything Mr Ramo just said is is in the record um through testimony but to put that uh in in terms of land use uh sort to speak those are all positives he's pointing out and if we just looked at this as any other uh zoning variance application under a c variance we would say that all those all those positives substantially outweigh the detriment so and what's the detriment the detriment is the um 300 34 square feet or 4.7% um increased floor area ratio that's the detriment I've laid out I've talked I won't repeat it about how there's no negative consequence to that um but he did bring up an interesting point about the two 2007 approval they were approved for 53% law coverage there's existing now 50% they're bringing it down to 42.3 so it's just another uh I think as Mr Ramo eloquently uh pointed out all the positives um to the application so when you look at it that way you know all that in exchange for uh what the variance is for and and that's the little overage in in uh floor area ratio um I am going to open it up to the public within 200 feet if you gentlemen wish to say anything okay Beyond 200 feet there's no one here so it's closed to the public does anyone else have anything yeah I have a question for you and this probably for the attorneys uh what would be and I think you said you approached the city about buying it what what would be the feasibility of uh the current owners leasing that Land from the city that's it's not that's not a zoning question I can't answer that well would I guess from my point of view it would give them the additional uh land no no okay leasing it wouldn't I mean I guess in theory it's a 99 year lease maybe but yeah it had be pretty good lease but I don't think if if they don't want to be bothered selling it then but I also think they're going to lease yeah I think you know some of it has to do with the fact that it is a Creek in the water and they don't want to build on what was Waterway that's for drainage purposes no no I'm not I'm not faulting them for that I just wanted to demonstrate that he he made was willing to do that that's all was willing to bear that expense that's that was the only Point not faulting the city I wouldn't were when the city needs that area for flood mitigation they may do something there I mean I don't know I don't know what the future hold but it's a creek and it's a problem I mean Bloods so okay everybody ready I'll do a quick summary for you um this this is one the critical variance in this although there's several variances the critical one is is probably the FL area ratio one um this is one of those decisions that I think is within your discretion yes or no I think you can support either one you know um on one hand this really isn't that small of a lot it's only 500 less than which is required so in that sense it's not very extraordinary we've had some 3,000 foot Lots where it's impossible to do the FL ratio without building a ridic ridiculous you like a dogghouse on it and we let them exceed it I think that was like Second Avenue because your flare ratio is where we kind of draw the line all right we and everybody knows that that's sort of our our best defense against overbuilding um so this is not an extraordinary small lot it's also um we make a distinction between new construction and renovations right sometimes we're a little more lenient on Renovations of old houses you they're already in a tough spot they built most a lot this one is a lot more like new construction than than a renovation so that kind of mitigates against them in some ways um there's also the lot in the back um you know it isn't theirs you know the city could use it for someday they could put a fence around it and that kind of changes that visually in terms of the massing they could use it for some flood mitigation purposes but it's just simply not their lot um it also has a 42% lock coverage so one of the other checks we look at in terms of over building is the 42 % lock coverage you are they comply with lock coverage Sometimes they come they say we're complying with everything else but F so that's another one of the indicators of overdevelopment is full area ratio they're making it better but they're still not at the 40% and in a renovation this big they could they could they could do it you know but there's some things there's certainly stuff in their favor and they've presented that you know pretty well um and I've made their argument for them a bit I mean it does this is different than the other small lot situations um it is a ratio but in terms of massing there is open space behind them and this does look like in most circumstances this would be part of their lot I mean they've Mr gun's homework was effective and it does show that this was probably a railroad station it's by chance that it's not part of their lot and it'll function much like the other properties that are of similar size in terms of visually also to their credit where you're going to see this from is not from the back I mean I've lived on this street for for a long time uh now and i' I've never walked Behind these houses to see how they look visually massing from the from the back from the back so it's it's the masing from the front is usually where it hits you the most particularly if there's big open sidey yards you see these big houses this is going to not look like that um and in terms of fitting with the other houses unfortunately the future is houses getting higher and bigger on that block so that's a you know a point in their favor so I think you can you know they've given good reasons to say yes and you have some reasons to say no and you have to exercise your discretion I don't vote so that's up to you um so what you're deciding is whether this property can accommodate the deviation from the FL area ratio um and you'll have to decide that okay it requires a vote of five out of seven in order to pass and we have seven voters so weigh your votes have a because they matter a lot I hope that's a balanced presentation of testimony but you should consider all the testimony you've heard not just what I've summarized I try to take notes as I went along and and those are the things that I thought of um okay any questions anybody I just have a quick question it's over like 334 ft what is that like a a bedroom a 12 x 12 bedroom what does that come down to when it comes to like I'm like I'm not really sure their bedrooms are I know but I'm just not I mean it's like the size of a dining room 15 by 20 20 by 15 that's going to say that's that's how much they're over okay guess I need some visual all right so the motion that I'd recommend being made we always make a motion in the affirmative yes approves it no denies it but that's not an indication of how you should vote um the motion I recommend being made is a motion to Grant variances one through we're they presented it as a whole we're going to vote as a whole um unless someone has an objection that we're going to vote as a whole so it's variances 1 through five on page three of the engineers report subject to conditions one through 14 as outlined by the board engineer and also condition 18 on page two with 26 27 and 20 and 20 and 33 being waivers um I don't recall any conditions in our conversations but if there was one in there I'm including that I just don't have a specific note of that but that's the motion i' recommend being made but how you vote is up to you 33 was was a condition it's satis well but it's a condition but they they've indicated that they have prepared that Landscaping y thank you sir thanks okay can someone make that motion please I'll make the motion motion by Mr zzer I'll second seconded by Mrs Notch thank you Mr Lewin no no Mrs Notch no Miss Shen yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner no um I want to explain my my vote so I'm looking at the the piece of property and I respect your your argument and I think the plans are the plans are are beautiful but I don't find the exception satisfied I think the property is too small for the proposed project um the argument of the presence of the the railroad the city- owned property to me it doesn't satisfy the negative criteria I don't find it to be extraordinary and exceptional um I find a lot to be just it is what it is and I can't apply using property that is not owned by the homeowners I just can't I can't can't get past that particular issue and to justifying the variance under under these circumstances so for that reason I find the The Proposal for the floor area ratio to be um excessive in this instance and that's why my vote is no Mr venudo no Mrs wner I'm going to say yes okay I have a vote 40 three yes it required five yeses to pass so the application is denied maybe you can thank you madam chairman board members for for your time thank you very much good presentation then good homework I respect the the the effort by Mr gazonas to go find that stuff because it's not easy and it takes time and I've had to do it so those old Deeds are tricky yeah it's actually kind of fun night good night good night we have the payment of the Bills second I'll second okay I'll let second have a Miss motions uh Mr lwin second Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr dexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you motion to adjourn motion all in favor I thank you everyone have a good night